IRSN Barometer 2019
the perception of risks and security in France
http://barometre.irsn.fr
Faire avancer la sûreté nucléaire

Since 1990, the IRSN Barometer has been
following annually the perception of risks andsecurity by the French people. This continuous
study provides precious insight to better
understand risk perception, which in turnhelps IRSN better handle risk assessment. The
Barometer focuses on four major issues:1) the current concerns of the French,
2) their views on science and expertise,3) their perception of 35 risk situations,4) their opinion on nuclear matters.
This year, for the 3rd consecutive year, it also
displays three viewpoints from external experts.

The 2019 IRSN Barometer has been produced with thesame methodology as the previous editions: a face-toface survey was conducted in the fall of 2018, amongst
a representative sample of about 1000 French people.
The questionnaire evolved only marginally, so as
to take into account recent developments withoutcompromising the continuity of the data set. A notablechange occurred in 2019: a new institute (CDA),
conducted the survey. Most results were not affected.
For those that where, it led to two kinds of evolutions:a rise in the “do not know” replies and a narrowing of
the range of results. Both are factored in the analysis.

Part 1 - Question 1 : “In France, among the following issues, which one is the most concerning for you?” (2 replies possible)
Evolution of the cumulated resuls from 1998 to 2018

The lack of security

Climatic disruptions

Unemployment

Geopolitical instability (international migrations, tensions between some countries…)

Extreme poverty and exclusion

Nuclear risks

Environmental degradation
Terrorism

Medical care quality
Consequences of the financial crisis

The main concern of the French is, for the firsttime since 2001, “the lack of security”. It replaces“terrorism”, which drops to 5th place and loses 18
points. It is a notable change from the previous editions
that can appear surprising but is easily explained: thesurvey was conducted during the “yellow jackets”
episode of November 2018, which generated violent
outbursts, duly reported and amplified in the media.
“Unemployment” and “extreme poverty and exclusion”
stay in 2nd and 3rd positions. Environmental concerns
stay behind the socio-economic issues, but theirsignificance is growing. The combined results for“global warming” and “environmental degradation”
reach 42 %, to be compared with a combined score of
64 % for the socio-economic concerns.
Questioned about their main environmental concern,
the French reply massively “global warming”, and they
are more numerous than ever to declare so (+8 points
since 2017 and +29 points since 2013). Second comes
this year “the disappearance of animal species”, up
from 3rd place last year and gaining 5 points. On thecontrary, “air pollution” and “water pollution” see theirscore decrease again. Put together, they lost close to
30 points since 2013, probably to the benefit of thebroader modality “global warming”.
The French keep a positive opinion of science and itsbenefits. They also think greatly of the experts: 58 %have a good or very good opinion of them and only
6 % declare having a bad or very bad opinion. As for thequalities expected from said experts, “competence”
stays a solid first at 60 %, before “independence”(45 %) and “honesty” (40 %).

Part 2 - Question 2 : “The development of science and technology generates more benefits than detrimental effects”

AgreeMaybe agree

Disagree

Do not know

Transparency issues still matter a great deal: the publicity of expertise reports is deemed “a priority” or “importantbut not a priority” for 89 %. They are as numerous to believe that assessment bodies should commit to reply to all
the questions submitted by citizens and NGOs.
Pluralistic structures (composed of operators, experts, elected officials, citizens…) are viewed as useful by
a strong majority (81 %). However, fewer French people declare a will to personally commit by participating
to public meetings on the management of high risk facilities. They are now 39 % to reply they would, while
52 % say they would decline, a rise of 12 % since 2004.
Every year, the Barometer focuses on the same 35 risk situations. For each of them, it questions the French on
3 dimensions: the perceived level of risk, the trust in the authorities to handle the situation and the credibility of
the information given on the dangers of the situation.
In terms of perceived level of risk, the top three risk situations stay the same as last year: “cancer”, followedby “terrorism” and “pesticides”. We observe a significant increase in the perceived risk level for “floods” and asignificant decrease “forest fires” compared to the other risks. They respectively move up 6 positions and down
7 positions. Nuclear power plants and radioactive waste stay stable. The 3 situations with the lower level ofperceived risk are “indoor radon”, “medical radiography” and “radiation therapy accidents”, which is customary.
Part 3 - Question 3: “The perception of the 35 risk situations according to the 3 dimensions: high risk level, trust and credibility”

Indoor radon
High voltage lines
Nanoparticules

Youth smoking
Drugs
CancerAlcoholism
Traffic accidents
Youth obesity
AIDS

Mobile phones aerial repeaters

Domestic accidents

Fallout from the Chernobyl accident
Endocrine disrupters

Terrorism
Floods

GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)
Ground pollution

Heat waves

Lakes, rivers and sea pollution

Forest fires

Atmospheric pollution

Noise
Chemical waste

Pesticides
Medical X-rays
Radiation therapy accidents
Medical risks
Household waste incinerators
Occupational diseases
High level of risk

TrustCredibility

Radioactive waste
Chemical plants
Nuclear power plants
Foodsutffs
Transport of hazardous substances

The trust level in the authorities is still highest for“AIDS”, followed by “traffic accidents” and “forestfires”. We observe a significant move up by “noisenuisance”, from the 18th to the 8th position, for which
we have no definite explanation. The future evolutionof this situation will be monitored. The relative trustlevel in the authorities to handle the risks associatedwith radioactive waste decreases significantly, moving
down from the 24th to the 33rd position. In themeantime, however, the trust level in absolute value
rises from 21 % to 25 %. The evolution of this risk
situation will be closely monitored in the upcoming
years to discriminate between the cyclical and thestructural effects.
Regarding the credibility of the information, the same
3 risk situations remain ahead: “traffic accidents”,“AIDS” and “heat wave”, the 2nd and the 3rd switchingpositions compared to last year. The last 3 risk situationsin terms of credibility are this year “nanoparticles”,“chemical waste” and “radioactive waste”, three issues
which often arouse protest within the civil society.
Focusing on the nuclear issues, the strongest arguments
in favor and against nuclear power remain the same.
In favor of nuclear energy, “energy independence”(36 %) stays ahead, followed by “the cost perkW/h” (21 %) and “the absence of greenhouse gasemissions” (19 %).

Among arguments against nuclear energy, “the riskof an accident” (35 %) remains first, followed by“radioactive waste” (23 %) and “the vulnerability ofnuclear installations” (19 %).
Questioned about the catastrophic events they view
as most frightening, the French now position theChernobyl nuclear accident (33 %) clearly ahead of
the Fukushima nuclear accident (26 %). This trend willvery probably be confirmed next year, due to HBO’sacclaimed TV series “Chernobyl”, which was not out
yet when the survey was conducted at the end of 2018.
The perception of the possibility of a severe accident
in France decreases significantly (-17points) to getto 49 %.
Finally, regarding the competence and credibility of
the actors of the nuclear field, we observe a narrowing
in the range of results, in particular as for competence.
All the actors customarily positioned as the mostcompetent see their score decrease, and conversely forthe actors perceived as the least competent. Relative
positions are however stable. CNRS, the nuclear
safety authority (ASN), IRSN and CEA thus come inas most competent. In terms of credibility, consumer
protection NGOs and environmental NGOs come infirst, ahead of CNRS and the Académie des Sciences.

Credibility

Part 4 - Question 16 : “In the nuclear industry and energy field, do you think the following actors are technically competent?”
Question 17 : “Do the following sources of information tell you the truth on the nuclear issues in France?”

Competence